Thursday, August 03, 2017

The destruction of all values has left the way open for Trump

Trump ignores all values but his own. He is constantly treading on the toes of the Leftist establishment. But who is responsible for that? If "there is no such thing as right and wrong" how can anything Trump does be wrong? The Left have been hoist with their own petard (blown up by their own bomb). Liberals dismissed civic values as jingoistic so Trump is not bound by them and is free to rewrite them

It was almost too much of a gift, wasn’t it? When the Boy Scouts of America held a 40,000-strong jamboree and asked the president to give the keynote speech, most of elite America tuned in hoping for some fun. They would have settled for jejune gags and perhaps for some of that mission statement to be dishonoured.

What they got, though, was the full madness of King Donald, who took his jousting routine to rural West Virginia and proved that he could cause jaws to drop there, too.

Everything about the speech struck America’s elite as awful. It was overtly political. It was boastful. It was cruel, including a wildly inappropriate story of a property mogul Trump had known who “failed badly” and who cut a sad and lonely figure at a party “with all the hottest people in New York”.

In West Virginia the “hottest people” are simply those who wear the most clothes in summer. No wonder that, within days, the Boy Scouts of America apologised for “the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree”. Yes, it was quite a week for smart, elite, anti-Trump America. The trashing of the American political system and the social norms that underpin it has come to pass.

One in six think it might be all right for the army to take over
But if Trump is a nightmare and his courtiers worse, then who are the morons? Are they not the electors, the wider nation? And in particular those members of the bipartisan elite that used to run America but on whose watch its civic virtues fell from favour? Some Americans have been remembering fondly the time when civics was taught in schools. It was a part of every education until the late 1960s: the values of volunteering, the way the constitution worked, a sense of pride in the whole glue of being American.

This century has seen civics teaching wither even further. The effects range from the mundane, with surveys suggesting that only a third of Americans can name all three branches of government, to the more worrying: according to the World Values Survey, one in six Americans think it might be all right for the army to take over, up from one in 16 in 1995.

Once, when I lived in America, my young son leant towards me on a bus and pointed out that the driver was black. It seemed an odd thing for him to notice or care about. So what, I said. “Well,” he said, “black people are at the front of the bus because they used not to be allowed and now they have the right and they drive all of them.”

His misreading of the Rosa Parks story was, at that stage, pretty much his only teaching on Being American. Where once he would have learnt about the separation of powers and glories of the constitution, the focus was now on conflict, injustice, the righting of historical wrongs. I was at home writing books about how wonderful America could still be, while my son went to school and was taught how awful it could be.

No decent person can deny the injustices committed by Americans in the past. But in their haste to banish the jingoism of civics, the educational establishment has thrown out baby and bathwater. The awful truth is dawning on thoughtful Americans: that the trashing of norms of behaviour by this president has been enabled by well-meaning but naive liberals who thought those norms were not worth teaching in class.

The split over civics has mirrored the wider cultural chasm that opened up as confident, progressive, self-satisfied wealthy Americans began to take off and leave the rest behind. Who needed to know about the petty civic virtues of the United States, the rules and regulations and traditions, when there was gay marriage to fight for, or transgender rights? The answer has come back to bite the trendies hard.

Most Americans are at least somewhat aware of what is happening at American (and European) universities with regard to conservative speakers. Universities disinvite conservative speakers, never invite them or allow the violent (or threatened violent) prevention of them. No non-left-wing idea should be permitted on campus.

But we may have hit a new low.

Let me explain.

For years, I have been conducting symphony orchestras in Southern California. I have conducted the Brentwood-Westwood, Glendale and West Los Angeles Symphony Orchestras, the Pasadena Lyric Opera and the Los Angeles Philharmonic at the Hollywood Bowl. I have studied classical music since high school, when I first began playing piano and studying orchestral scores.

I conduct orchestras because I love making music. But I also do so because I want to help raise funds for local orchestras (I have never been paid to conduct) and I want to expose as many people to classical music as possible.

After I conduct a symphony, I then conduct select parts of the piece in order to show the audience what various sections of the orchestra are doing. After that, I walk around the orchestra with a microphone and interview some of the musicians. Everyone seems to love it.

After intermission, the permanent and professional conductor conducts his orchestra in another symphony.

About half a year ago, the conductor of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra, Guido Lamell, who is also a longtime member of the violin section of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, asked me whether I would be interested in conducting his orchestra. I said yes even before he added the punchline -- at the Walt Disney Concert Hall.

For those not up to date on concert halls, the Walt Disney Concert Hall, which opened less than 15 years ago, is one of the preeminent concert halls of the world. Being invited to conduct a superb orchestra at that hall is one of the great honors of my life.

However, about a month ago, a few members of the orchestra, supported by some Santa Monica city officials, decided to lead a campaign to have me disinvited.

As I said, this is a new low for the illiberal left: It is not enough to prevent conservatives from speaking; it is now necessary to prevent conservatives from appearing even when not speaking. Conservatives should not even be allowed to make music.

To its great credit, the board of directors of the orchestra, composed of individuals of all political outlooks, has completely stood by its conductor and his invitation to me.

But the attempt to cancel me continues. It is being organized by three members of the orchestra, each of whom has refused to play that night. Readers will not be surprised to learn that two of the three organizers are college professors. Michael Chwe is a professor of political science at UCLA, and Andrew Apter is a professor of history at UCLA.

In an open letter to the symphony's members posted on the Slipped Disc website, the three wrote, "A concert with Dennis Prager would normalize hatred and bigotry."

One example of my hatred and bigotry includes my belief that in giving a child over for adoption, adoption agencies should prefer a married man and woman before singles and same-sex couples. Another -- my favorite -- is my having said that if there is no God, ethics are subjective, which will offend atheist members of the orchestra.

These are the types of academics who are giving universities their reputation for illiberal closed-mindedness -- which not only ruins the universities as educational institutions but also hurts them financially. The New York Times recently published an article on how many alumni are no longer donating money to the colleges they attended because of the war on diverse thought on their campuses.

Now they want to do to orchestras what they have done to universities.

I hereby extend an invitation to Chwe and Apter to come on my radio show to explain to my listeners why my conservative positions render me a hateful bigot and explain why people with conservative views should not be allowed to conduct classical music. I hope they accept -- people will then be able to assess who is and who isn't a hater.

Not to be outdone by these professors, a former mayor of Santa Monica and current council member, Kevin McKeown, was quoted on Slipped Disk as saying: "I personally will most certainly not be attending a concert featuring a bigoted hate-monger. The judgement (or lack of) shown in inviting Prager may affect future community support for the Symphony."

However, there are other voices. The Santa Monica City Manager Rick Cole does not agree with the former mayor. "This City supports the arts," he said when asked by the Santa Monica Lookout whether the symphony's invitation presented difficulties. "It appears that Dennis Prager supports the arts. The City, in funding a season of musical performances, does not choose what music is played or who plays it at any particular concert."

I have devoted this column to this subject to expose the latest attempt of anti-liberal leftists -- the real haters -- to shut conservatives out of every form of intellectual and artistic endeavor.

Another reason is to ask readers in Southern California to attend the concert. Here is a rare opportunity to combine a terrific evening (especially if you've never attended a classical concert) in one of the world's greatest concert halls with a chance to defeat the illiberal left. The more people who attend on Aug. 16, the greater the message that music must transcend political differences. And it rewards the Santa Monica Symphony board and conductor for their moral courage.

I will be conducting Haydn's Symphony No. 51. Like Haydn, I think music is one of those few things that can bring people together. Clearly, not everyone agrees.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and officials from other states speak with reporters April 18, 2016, after oral arguments in their court case opposing President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration. (Photo: Jaff Malet Photography/Newscom)
A lawsuit by states seeking to end protected status for children whose parents brought them to the U.S. illegally could spare President Donald Trump from personally halting the Obama administration program.

“DACA is an unlawful program that must be phased out,” @AGRutledge says.

Or, immigration experts say, such litigation could force Democrats in Congress to bargain on stricter enforcement of immigration law.

Last month, 10 state attorneys general, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, wrote U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for the Trump administration to end a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

The program shields from deportation those who were minors when their parents brought them to the country illegally, a population their advocates call “dreamers.”

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1.4 million DACA requests were accepted.

The state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit, but are willing to drop it if the Trump administration acts.

“There is no way around it: DACA is an unlawful program that must be phased out,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who signed the letter, told The Daily Signal in a prepared statement.

“I am not asking the government to remove any person currently covered by DACA or for the administration to rescind DACA permits that have already been issued—this is about upholding the rule of law,” Rutledge said. “Even former President Obama acknowledged many times that he did not have authority to unilaterally grant this type of legal status to over 1 million aliens.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam confirmed to The Daily Signal that the department received the letter but declined further comment.

Besides Paxton, those signing the letter to Sessions include the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter also signed.

In 2012, while President Barack Obama was running for re-election, his Department of Homeland Security adopted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

In 2014, Obama expanded protection from deportation to the parents of illegal immigrants with Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.

After states sued, courts rejected DAPA, asserting the executive branch doesn’t have the solitary power to grant legal status.

In June, citing the rulings, Trump’s Homeland Security secretary, John Kelly, revoked the 2014 memo authorizing DAPA. But the agency said at the time that DACA would remain in effect.

The Supreme Court deadlocked on DAPA in 2016, leaving in effect a U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding an injunction that blocked the policy.

“If DAPA is illegal, then DACA is illegal,” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal. “But dreamers are the most sympathetic group of illegals. This would involve taking something away. So, you would have a string of sob stories in the media, which would be Pulitzer bait.”

However, if the Trump administration simply allows a case against DACA to move forward, the courts likely would strike down the program, alleviating it from political blame, Krikorian said.

He said it also might force Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to reach a deal for tougher enforcement of immigration laws in exchange for the Trump administration’s agreeing to provide protection from deportation for the “dreamers.”

“The administration might hope the courts will decide for them and they can say, ‘Our hands are tied,’” Krikorian said.

“If Texas and the other states sue, and [DACA is] struck down and is about to turn into a pumpkin, [Trump] might be able to pressure Schumer to pass E-Verify and end chain migration.”

Under the E-Verify system, now voluntary, employers electronically check the legal status of immigrant workers. Many conservatives hope to make it mandatory.

Chain migration is a term used to describe a policy of keeping immigrant families together by giving reference to the relatives of those already here in allowing individuals to enter the country. Trump and others back a merit-based system based on what skills and education an immigrant can bring.

Paxton organized the letter to Sessions signed by himself and his counterparts, who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit that challenged DAPA, the program protecting parents of illegal immigrants.

The letter states that DACA is illegal for the same reason of executive overreach, and that if the Trump administration makes corrections by Sept. 5, the attorneys general will dismiss their lawsuit against that program in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The letter says, in part:

The original 2012 DACA program covers over 1 million otherwise unlawfully present aliens … And just like DAPA, DACA unilaterally confers eligibility for work authorization … and lawful presence without any statutory authorization from Congress. … We respectfully request that the secretary of Homeland Security phase out the DACA program.

A lawsuit would force the Trump administration to act, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“If a lawsuit were filed, then DOJ would be put in the awkward position of defending the Obama program or eliminating it in response to the lawsuit,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

The letter is a needed reminder to the Justice Department that the DACA program is also unlawful, he said:

The administration has a constitutional obligation to terminate the DACA program, a program providing government benefits for illegal aliens that was not only not authorized under federal immigration law, but actually violated the law. This administration should not allow the unlawful actions of the prior administration to continue.

Illegal immigrants protected under DACA are allowed to get a Social Security card and, in many states, a driver’s license. Although “dreamers” can’t access direct federal financial assistance for college, they are eligible to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which opens up opportunities under certain state and private grants and loans.

The 10 state attorneys general are “egging the federal government on to be more cruel and heartless,” said Naomi Tsu, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, a progressive legal group known for labeling its political opponents as “hate groups.”

“The letter requests that the Department of Justice revoke protections for immigrant youth and begin targeting for deportation these young people who have grown up as Americans,” Tsu said in a prepared statement. “These attacks will prevent children, many of whom know no other home, from working legally and reaching their full potential. If the Trump administration follows through on this request, they will be responsible for further pushing immigrant communities underground, making communities less safe, less prosperous, and more divided.”

Although the letter from the state attorneys general mentions the Department of Homeland Security, DHS spokesman David Lapan referred The Daily Signal to the Justice Department.

The program is not likely to survive a court challenge, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

“If it went to the Supreme Court, it would be ruled unconstitutional,” Mehlman said of DACA in a phone interview with The Daily Signal. “Our expectation was that DACA was just going to lapse. It wasn’t our expectations these people would be rounded up and deported. But they would revert back to their previous status.”

For Idaho Attorney General Lawrence G. Wasden, the letter is about separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.

“This is part of my office’s ongoing efforts to encourage the federal government to respect the separation of powers,” Wasden said in a prepared statement, adding:

These [Obama administration] directives were the equivalent of legislating by executive order. My signature on this letter is not about targeting immigrant families. Rather, it is consistent with my objection to legislative executive orders as well as encouragement to Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and address these pressing issues

Political commentator slams Waleed Aly as 'unhinged' after Aly claims Australian Government has 'over-hyped the threat of terrorism'

An amusing example of Leftists telling only half the story. Aly says that immigration and multiculturalism used to be celebrated in Australia but are now considered a threat. Not a whisper about WHY it is now considered a threat. It wouldn't be experience of Muslim atrocities and violent crime, would it?

Political commentator and author Gerard Henderson has slammed Waleed Aly's comments about immigration and terrorism as 'unhinged'.

The Project host Waleed Aly wrote a piece for The New York Times on Thursday titled 'Immigration as a security threat' in which he said Australia 'over-hyped the threat of terrorism'.

Aly called Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull 'extremely weak' and slammed his plan to create a super ministry of Home Affairs to combat terrorism.

Appearing on Andrew Bolt's The Bolt Report on Tuesday, Gerard Henderson rubbished Aly's take on the system.

'I've had a look at Waleed Aly's piece, and for Dr Aly to say that Malcolm Turnbull has debased immigration in Australia to an American and international audience, is completely false,' he said.

'The idea that the prime minister, because he renames a department is debasing immigration, is just a total fallacy. '[It's] demeaning of the country.

'From a man who holds a doctorate of philosophy and teaches students at Monash University and has a number of programs on the ABC and Channel 10, this is sort of unhinged commentary.'

In his piece for the New York Times on Thursday Waleed Aly detailed Australia's apparent morphing perception of immigration.

He said immigration and multiculturalism used to be celebrated but was now considered a 'threat to be managed'.

Waleed Aly also claimed Australia was inflating the threat of terror to tighten immigration.

'Every now and then you get the impression that Australia is desperate to be under grave threat,' he said.

'Turnbull last week announced the creation of a super ministry, choosing as his backdrop a mix of military equipment and soldiers wearing gas masks. 'It was a shocking yet predictable moment because it seemed like a sudden escalation for Mr Turnbull who was once a critic of Mr Abbott's tendency to over-hype the threat of terrorism.'

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties. The tide turned in 2017, however, with a public vote authorizing homosexual marriage in Australia

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here